ampguy
Veteran
bill
bill
whatcha got in 35mm stuff??
bill
whatcha got in 35mm stuff??
bmattock said:
slightly OT: MF SLRs - Best Bang for Buck?
- Thread starter JoeFriday
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 81
- Views 7K
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 12:13 PM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,739
At work, I have access to a couple of Rollei 6003's that are used primaily for aerial work (forest survey). Absolutely superb cameras, with great optics, that do almost everything well. We've put thousands of feet of 70mm film through them (Kodak Color Infrared) with no problems. Only downside is their reliance on batteries.
I owned a Hasselblad for personal use years back and have good words to say about that camera system too.
For me the choice would be between a mechanical camera, like the Hasselbald, or one that requires batteries, like the Rollei.
Jim Bielecki
I owned a Hasselblad for personal use years back and have good words to say about that camera system too.
For me the choice would be between a mechanical camera, like the Hasselbald, or one that requires batteries, like the Rollei.
Jim Bielecki
bmattock
Veteran
ampguy said:
Much. Mostly old fixed-lens RF's, not in great shape. I'll be listing them on eBoy, user name bmattocks.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Dougg
Seasoned Member
Here are a couple of web sites with useful info about various choices:
http://www.jafaphotography.com/medium.html
http://medfmt.8k.com/
Other than brief use of a Hasselblad long ago, my only MF SLR experience is in using a Pentax 6x7 since 1976. That choice came for a couple of reasons; that as a 15-year user of Pentax I trusted the quality of the brand, and secondly its familiar form factor similar to 35mm SLR. I have three of them now, and still happy with that choice. Very tough and reliable rig with a big choice of excellent glass. And current prices are attractive.
Of course be skeptical of some critical exaggerations, similar to comments about how flimsy the Bessa-R is, for instance. Recent comments here from new buyers that the Bessas are much nicer than they expected from online criticisms show the effect of overstating problems. Same I'm sure with a lot of different gear, but don't be put off by stories of mirror and shutter vibration in the Pentax, for example. Yeah, it's really there and needs to be addressed for critical work at slow shutter speeds, but my first 6x7 has no mirror lockup feature and I did not see that as a great hindrance over my 17 years of use before getting a second body with MLU. At least half the clatter occurs at the end of the exposure cycle anyway... 🙂
If you're interested in close focusing, even medium format SLRs don't generally focus as close as the typical 35mm SLR, so you'll want to look at macro lenses, extension tubes, and pick lenses with closer focusing like the new Pentax 75mm f/2.8 Aspheric: focus to 0.41m and angle of view 61 degrees. Nice wide/normal.
http://www.jafaphotography.com/medium.html
http://medfmt.8k.com/
Other than brief use of a Hasselblad long ago, my only MF SLR experience is in using a Pentax 6x7 since 1976. That choice came for a couple of reasons; that as a 15-year user of Pentax I trusted the quality of the brand, and secondly its familiar form factor similar to 35mm SLR. I have three of them now, and still happy with that choice. Very tough and reliable rig with a big choice of excellent glass. And current prices are attractive.
Of course be skeptical of some critical exaggerations, similar to comments about how flimsy the Bessa-R is, for instance. Recent comments here from new buyers that the Bessas are much nicer than they expected from online criticisms show the effect of overstating problems. Same I'm sure with a lot of different gear, but don't be put off by stories of mirror and shutter vibration in the Pentax, for example. Yeah, it's really there and needs to be addressed for critical work at slow shutter speeds, but my first 6x7 has no mirror lockup feature and I did not see that as a great hindrance over my 17 years of use before getting a second body with MLU. At least half the clatter occurs at the end of the exposure cycle anyway... 🙂
If you're interested in close focusing, even medium format SLRs don't generally focus as close as the typical 35mm SLR, so you'll want to look at macro lenses, extension tubes, and pick lenses with closer focusing like the new Pentax 75mm f/2.8 Aspheric: focus to 0.41m and angle of view 61 degrees. Nice wide/normal.
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
all excellent comments.. thanks everyone.. Bill and I are talking about his Bronica collection, but until I decide what I want to do, it's fair game for anyone
for now, I've got a lot to digest.. but more comments/suggestions are definitely welcome
for now, I've got a lot to digest.. but more comments/suggestions are definitely welcome
sf
Veteran
Bets bang for the buck?
Depends on what you want. 6x7 or 645 or 6x6?
The most versatile, high quality studio camera around is the Mamiya RZ67/II.
Then the Rollei (pricey)
then the Bronica (it's relatively low cost makes it a great bang for the buck)
Depends on what you want. 6x7 or 645 or 6x6?
The most versatile, high quality studio camera around is the Mamiya RZ67/II.
Then the Rollei (pricey)
then the Bronica (it's relatively low cost makes it a great bang for the buck)
mdelevie
Established
pick your negative size (format) first
pick your negative size (format) first
I did exactly what you're pondering. Medium format film equipment is going for a song lately, as all the pros go over to high-end DSLRs or digital MF backs.
I would suggest that you pick your negative format (ie, size) first. Here's my 30-second discussion of the various sizes:
6x4.5 cm is the entry level Medium Format negative. It makes good use of film (16 frames on a 120 roll, so 32 on a 220 roll), and it's well suited to most print sizes (5x7, 8x10, etc). You're still way ahead of 35mm in terms of negative size, so grain is relatively less important in big enlargements. You can print four images across the 8 inch side of your 8x10 contact sheet. A "normal" lens in this negative size is the 75mm.
6x6 cm is 'the standard' in a domain which eschews standards. An advantage of 6x6 is that you never have to rotate the camera 90 degrees to switch from landscape to portrait orientation. However, all of the common print sizes are rectangular (4x6, 5x7, 8x10, etc), so you're throwing away some large part of the image when you make prints to those rectangular frames. Sometimes you'll be glad to have the option to crop 'portrait' or 'landscape' in the same frame, but most of my images are pretty obviously one or the other. You'll get 12 frames on a 120 roll with 6x6, and strips of three frames will fit on the 8 inch side of your contact sheet. A "normal" lens in 6x6 is around 80mm.
6x7 is a nice large image, close enough to 6x6 that you can keep the camera horizontal for quick grabs and not lose much compared to rotationg 90 degrees. This size doesn't lend itself well to contact prints sideways on 8x10 IMO; you might wind up wasting some paper. But since the 6x7 negative is proportioned almost the same as 8x10, it's just about ideal for enlargement to that size print without having to crop off much of the image. (for sake of comparison, 6x7 needs to be enlarged 3.2 times to make an 8x10 print, and 6x6 needs to be enlarged 4 times for the same print. That's a big difference, which comes from the more suitable aspect ratio)
6x9 is marvelously large, the contact prints are almost postcards. You'll get around eight frames on a roll of 120 film. Contact prints will be two across, and you won't need a loupe to proof them. 😛 A "normal" lens in 6x9 is around 90mm.
If you're interested in how the focal lengths stack up, check out http://www.photo.net/equipment/medium-format/focal-length-conversion or google the subject of 35mm equivalent focal length.
As for me, 6x4.5 has been great. I got a Bronica ETRSi, and followed it with a Bronica RF645 rangefinder.
The ETRSi is a real workhorse camera, very easy to use, cheap as dirt on the Bay, with good glass available (get the PE lenses, the coatings are better than the earlier MC or E lenses) and lots of accessories. The metering prism finders (AE-II or AE-III) integrate well with the camera body, allowing aperture-priority auto exposure or manual metering. There are good zoom lenses available, yes, that's right, zoom lenses in medium format! I have the PE 100-220, which is fantastic for product shots in the studio, it's darn near a macro lens. There's a flash adapter which allows TTL flash metering, and Metz Mecablitz flashes are similarly bargain priced these days. Prices are unbelievably low; I got the 100-220 zoom lens from KEH for $300, and the 50-75-150 primes regularly go for less than $200 on the Bay.
Basically, I've been very happy with the ETRSi camera. If you like the camera but want square format (6x6 cm), then the SQ series is equivalent. The equivalent in 6x7 cm is the Bronica GS series, and they didn't make one in 6x9.
Of course, the Bronica RF645 rangefinder is a dream to shoot with. It wasn't quite such a bargain as the ETRSi, but it handles leica big leica, and the image is 3.7 times bigger than 35mm. Bliss!
The quality of most medium format systems is excellent. Most cameras have leaf shutters, which allow flash sync at all speeds. The optics are generally very good, though not fast by 35mm standards. (f/2.8 is considered 'fast' in medium format lenses)
Good luck, let us know what you decide!
Mark
ps, you won't be sneaking up on anyone with a medium format SLR. These are big cameras, noisy when the mirror cycles, etc. For studio work, that's no problem, but for street photography, the medium format rangefinders (Mamiya 6/7, Bronica RF, et al) are unbeatable.
pick your negative size (format) first
I did exactly what you're pondering. Medium format film equipment is going for a song lately, as all the pros go over to high-end DSLRs or digital MF backs.
I would suggest that you pick your negative format (ie, size) first. Here's my 30-second discussion of the various sizes:
6x4.5 cm is the entry level Medium Format negative. It makes good use of film (16 frames on a 120 roll, so 32 on a 220 roll), and it's well suited to most print sizes (5x7, 8x10, etc). You're still way ahead of 35mm in terms of negative size, so grain is relatively less important in big enlargements. You can print four images across the 8 inch side of your 8x10 contact sheet. A "normal" lens in this negative size is the 75mm.
6x6 cm is 'the standard' in a domain which eschews standards. An advantage of 6x6 is that you never have to rotate the camera 90 degrees to switch from landscape to portrait orientation. However, all of the common print sizes are rectangular (4x6, 5x7, 8x10, etc), so you're throwing away some large part of the image when you make prints to those rectangular frames. Sometimes you'll be glad to have the option to crop 'portrait' or 'landscape' in the same frame, but most of my images are pretty obviously one or the other. You'll get 12 frames on a 120 roll with 6x6, and strips of three frames will fit on the 8 inch side of your contact sheet. A "normal" lens in 6x6 is around 80mm.
6x7 is a nice large image, close enough to 6x6 that you can keep the camera horizontal for quick grabs and not lose much compared to rotationg 90 degrees. This size doesn't lend itself well to contact prints sideways on 8x10 IMO; you might wind up wasting some paper. But since the 6x7 negative is proportioned almost the same as 8x10, it's just about ideal for enlargement to that size print without having to crop off much of the image. (for sake of comparison, 6x7 needs to be enlarged 3.2 times to make an 8x10 print, and 6x6 needs to be enlarged 4 times for the same print. That's a big difference, which comes from the more suitable aspect ratio)
6x9 is marvelously large, the contact prints are almost postcards. You'll get around eight frames on a roll of 120 film. Contact prints will be two across, and you won't need a loupe to proof them. 😛 A "normal" lens in 6x9 is around 90mm.
If you're interested in how the focal lengths stack up, check out http://www.photo.net/equipment/medium-format/focal-length-conversion or google the subject of 35mm equivalent focal length.
As for me, 6x4.5 has been great. I got a Bronica ETRSi, and followed it with a Bronica RF645 rangefinder.
The ETRSi is a real workhorse camera, very easy to use, cheap as dirt on the Bay, with good glass available (get the PE lenses, the coatings are better than the earlier MC or E lenses) and lots of accessories. The metering prism finders (AE-II or AE-III) integrate well with the camera body, allowing aperture-priority auto exposure or manual metering. There are good zoom lenses available, yes, that's right, zoom lenses in medium format! I have the PE 100-220, which is fantastic for product shots in the studio, it's darn near a macro lens. There's a flash adapter which allows TTL flash metering, and Metz Mecablitz flashes are similarly bargain priced these days. Prices are unbelievably low; I got the 100-220 zoom lens from KEH for $300, and the 50-75-150 primes regularly go for less than $200 on the Bay.
Basically, I've been very happy with the ETRSi camera. If you like the camera but want square format (6x6 cm), then the SQ series is equivalent. The equivalent in 6x7 cm is the Bronica GS series, and they didn't make one in 6x9.
Of course, the Bronica RF645 rangefinder is a dream to shoot with. It wasn't quite such a bargain as the ETRSi, but it handles leica big leica, and the image is 3.7 times bigger than 35mm. Bliss!
The quality of most medium format systems is excellent. Most cameras have leaf shutters, which allow flash sync at all speeds. The optics are generally very good, though not fast by 35mm standards. (f/2.8 is considered 'fast' in medium format lenses)
Good luck, let us know what you decide!
Mark
ps, you won't be sneaking up on anyone with a medium format SLR. These are big cameras, noisy when the mirror cycles, etc. For studio work, that's no problem, but for street photography, the medium format rangefinders (Mamiya 6/7, Bronica RF, et al) are unbeatable.
Last edited:
simonankor
Registered Addict
I'm throwing in a vote for the Kowa... if you can find one cheap. The difference between the 6 and the Super 66 is backs - the Super 66 has an L-shaped interchangeable back, and the 6 is a one-piece body. Made no difference to me as I only had one back anyway. They seem pretty solid, the only problem possibly being that the wind gear can be stripped if you're too enthusiastic i.e. if you're letting a gorilla wind it on for you 😉
The 80/2.8 is a really really nice lens.
The 80/2.8 is a really really nice lens.
majid
Fazal Majid
FWIV, I paid $1200 for my 1984 vintage Hasselblad 500C/M with a 80mm f/2.8 Planar lens. The Planar is just as sharp as a Summicron.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Since this thread has decided to come back from the dead 🙂 I'll simply make a quick vote for the Mamiya 645 system. Exquisite glass and bodies that go for almost pennies on the dollar compared to thier real quality/value. For whatever reason, in MF Mamiya gear seems to be like Canon FD in miniture format: great glass, great bodies, but cheap as it gets because everyone doesn't use it anymore... :shrug:
Get a M645 1000 and some of the glorious lenses they made and you'll be a very happy camper with a wallet that is much less light than it might otherwise be...
Hope this helps...
William
Get a M645 1000 and some of the glorious lenses they made and you'll be a very happy camper with a wallet that is much less light than it might otherwise be...
Hope this helps...
William
ChrisN
Striving
Simon - lovely photo of your dog.
William - a timely post! I have just done as you advise - here's a pic from the first roll taken yesterday. 45mm lens at f/11. The forecourt of Australia's Parliament House.
wlewisiii said:
William - a timely post! I have just done as you advise - here's a pic from the first roll taken yesterday. 45mm lens at f/11. The forecourt of Australia's Parliament House.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Very nice! One of my bigger mistakes when I got into RF's was to sell my Mamiya gear. Yah, it financed more than a few fun toys, but I'd love to have it now. Going to have to get another M645 & some lenses for it as it's just about as good as it gets ... 😀
William
William
anselwannab
Well-known
I found a lot of good advice on photo.net, the medium format group/digest. Lots of posts to read, some good info.
I started leaning towards a Fuji 680 because of the rise/fall shift/tilt capapbilities, but they are still expensive. I worked my way towards a RB67, cheaper and seems to have a good history, plus still in production (or at least for sale new according to the Mamiya website).
Still haven't pulled the trigger, I'm going to need a scanner sonce I have a Minolta Scan Dual IV now.
Camera, wide lens, telephoto lens, some backs, a scanner, all add up fast!
I started leaning towards a Fuji 680 because of the rise/fall shift/tilt capapbilities, but they are still expensive. I worked my way towards a RB67, cheaper and seems to have a good history, plus still in production (or at least for sale new according to the Mamiya website).
Still haven't pulled the trigger, I'm going to need a scanner sonce I have a Minolta Scan Dual IV now.
Camera, wide lens, telephoto lens, some backs, a scanner, all add up fast!
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
I'm glad this thread came back from the dead as I haven't made much headway about a decision.. I could probably pick up any reliable system and have a field day, but the choices and options can be overwhelming.. all the info so far has really helped, but also tends to confuse me 😀
simonankor
Registered Addict
Thanks Chris... not my dog, but a lovely dog nonetheless!
Gordon Coale
Well-known
No mention of the commie 6x6 slr -- the Salut-S and it's Kiev offspring. I have two. You can pick them up for $100-$200. Gevorg, at Arax (the Oleg for the Salut/Kiev), charges $37 for a CLA amd $57 to repair a shutter. A nice copy of the Hasselblad, the early Hasselblad with the focal plane shutter. Inexpensive lenses and accessories.
David Murphy
Veteran
IMO the Kowa medium format SLRs are beautiful cameras desipite anything you might have read (I've owned one). Expect to lay out $600 for a good 3 lens outfit though if you shop well. It will be at least triple that for a basic used Hasselblad kit based around something like the 500C. The bottom line is that medium format SLR systems are still a bit pricey even in this digital era.
The Pentacon/Praktisix system looks interesting and might be a good, but there are potential pitfalls. This is an East German camera -- all the Russian systems have a poor track record, but some have their defenders. These are usually people that like to fix them (imagine that, repairing a new camera!). The Bronica S2A is said to be a winner, and has some moderate priced and good lenses available (i.e. Nikkor and Komura).
Battery dependent cameras are against my religion so I can't comment on the later Bronicas, Rolleis, and Mamiyas, although I will admit they take some impressive photos. They probably missed some nice shots too when the batteries packed it in at the wrong time 🙂
The Pentacon/Praktisix system looks interesting and might be a good, but there are potential pitfalls. This is an East German camera -- all the Russian systems have a poor track record, but some have their defenders. These are usually people that like to fix them (imagine that, repairing a new camera!). The Bronica S2A is said to be a winner, and has some moderate priced and good lenses available (i.e. Nikkor and Komura).
Battery dependent cameras are against my religion so I can't comment on the later Bronicas, Rolleis, and Mamiyas, although I will admit they take some impressive photos. They probably missed some nice shots too when the batteries packed it in at the wrong time 🙂
jonasv
has no mustache
I like the Pentacon Six. It works great, is cheap, and the lenses are stunning. That CZJ Biometar 80mm 2.8 is easily the sharpest lens I own. And the Sonnar 180 2.8 is a legend, and you can get one starting at $100... 50mm wide-angels, 30mm fisheyes, 120 and 300mm lenses, all superb CZJ glass available at bargain prices. I can handhold my Pentacon 6 down till 1/15th of a second and get sharp results. It's a fantastic camera.
sf
Veteran
I'll always be a Mamiya 645 guy. I don't own one, but I used to have one and it was great. Amazing glass, very plentiful on the auction sites and elsewhere, and a very large line of products.
Mamiya 645E, 645, 645J, M645, 645 Pro, 645 Pro TL, etc. If I were looking into 645 format and something with a WLF, I'd get the Pro TL and a waist level finder. If I didn't care about having a WLF or interchangeable backs, I'd buy a Pentax 645, 645n, or 645nII. Those are amazing cameras for very low prices compared to their Mamiya, Contax, Bronica, and Hasselblad counterparts.
If I wanted 6x6, the Hassy is a nice camera, going to last, but pricey. Salut, Kiev, etc are good and very reasonably priced.
Mamiya 645E, 645, 645J, M645, 645 Pro, 645 Pro TL, etc. If I were looking into 645 format and something with a WLF, I'd get the Pro TL and a waist level finder. If I didn't care about having a WLF or interchangeable backs, I'd buy a Pentax 645, 645n, or 645nII. Those are amazing cameras for very low prices compared to their Mamiya, Contax, Bronica, and Hasselblad counterparts.
If I wanted 6x6, the Hassy is a nice camera, going to last, but pricey. Salut, Kiev, etc are good and very reasonably priced.
David Murphy
Veteran
Just curious, did you have any issues with the film advance on yours -- how about its overall quality ? Does the metered prism work ?jvx said:
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
